Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. " You mean real people like Catherine the Great and Margaret Thatcher? Or some fantasy Wakanda princess? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if it would be different if women ruled the world in a matriarchy rather than the very few women in world leading positions having to lead within a patriarchy " this was my point to be honest as i say i woke up one morning and just seeing the state of the world and it got my little brain being creative  oh well who knows what the next generation will bear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if it would be different if women ruled the world in a matriarchy rather than the very few women in world leading positions having to lead within a patriarchy " This is where people will struggle to get past the women who have been in power under the patriarchy. In order to rise to power, or remain in power, they needed to behave more like men than men. Women have always been more likely to work collaboratively than men, they resort to violence far less frequently than men. These are both things that would lead to a more harmonious world, in my view. Look at voting patterns, women vote less for the more right wing, nationalist parties than men. In a matriarchal world, we would be far less likely to be nationalistic and aggressive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if it would be different if women ruled the world in a matriarchy rather than the very few women in world leading positions having to lead within a patriarchy This is where people will struggle to get past the women who have been in power under the patriarchy. In order to rise to power, or remain in power, they needed to behave more like men than men. Women have always been more likely to work collaboratively than men, they resort to violence far less frequently than men. These are both things that would lead to a more harmonious world, in my view. Look at voting patterns, women vote less for the more right wing, nationalist parties than men. In a matriarchal world, we would be far less likely to be nationalistic and aggressive." If we've got a few thousand years to wait perhaps that will happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if it would be different if women ruled the world in a matriarchy rather than the very few women in world leading positions having to lead within a patriarchy This is where people will struggle to get past the women who have been in power under the patriarchy. In order to rise to power, or remain in power, they needed to behave more like men than men. Women have always been more likely to work collaboratively than men, they resort to violence far less frequently than men. These are both things that would lead to a more harmonious world, in my view. Look at voting patterns, women vote less for the more right wing, nationalist parties than men. In a matriarchal world, we would be far less likely to be nationalistic and aggressive." Pretty much every thing you said about women here is sexist in a way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? " I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? " Hi babe, I was wondering when you would get here. It’s very flattering but just to be clear, I’m not going to shag you x Also, you appear to be struggling with your comprehension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men." I was responding to this comment: "Look at voting patterns, women vote less for the more right wing, nationalist parties than men. In a matriarchal world, we would be far less likely to be nationalistic and aggressive" The idea that women leading the world would magically result in a more peaceful and cooperative world is nonsensical as the examples I have shown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? Hi babe, I was wondering when you would get here. It’s very flattering but just to be clear, I’m not going to shag you x Also, you appear to be struggling with your comprehension." Beautiful and thoroughly rational reply 😘 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men." This is entirely correct, the women mentioned above would have grown up in an entirely different world, would they have even gone near politics, let alone become political leaders? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men. This is entirely correct, the women mentioned above would have grown up in an entirely different world, would they have even gone near politics, let alone become political leaders?" Still doesn't make sense. We had a world where women did not rule for a long time. But we now do have a world where we have a lots of women who are political party leaders and many of them are right wing/nationalist. So what evidence do you have to show that a world led by women would be far less nationalistic except for your misogynist notion that women are generally more nicer to others? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men. This is entirely correct, the women mentioned above would have grown up in an entirely different world, would they have even gone near politics, let alone become political leaders? Still doesn't make sense. We had a world where women did not rule for a long time. But we now do have a world where we have a lots of women who are political party leaders and many of them are right wing/nationalist. So what evidence do you have to show that a world led by women would be far less nationalistic except for your misogynist notion that women are generally more nicer to others?" We still live in a world created and dominated by men. This has been the way for thousands of years. You don't think the world would be any different today if women had been the ones in power? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men. This is entirely correct, the women mentioned above would have grown up in an entirely different world, would they have even gone near politics, let alone become political leaders? Still doesn't make sense. We had a world where women did not rule for a long time. But we now do have a world where we have a lots of women who are political party leaders and many of them are right wing/nationalist. So what evidence do you have to show that a world led by women would be far less nationalistic except for your misogynist notion that women are generally more nicer to others? We still live in a world created and dominated by men. This has been the way for thousands of years. You don't think the world would be any different today if women had been the ones in power?" I’m not quite sure he can get his head around the fact that had the past been different, the present would be different too. It’s like he’s denying the patriarchy has had any influence whatsoever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's see: UK - Kemi Badenoch - Centre right Germany - Alice Weidel - Far right France - Marine Le Pen - Far right Italy - Giorgia Meloni - Centre/Far Right Mette Frederiksen - Denmark - Centre Left but staunchly anti-immigration These are just the leaders of main parties in their respective countries. If you look at the MPs from these parties, there are numerous women who are right wing. You may find more women voting for left wing parties. But when it comes to actually entering politics and becoming leaders, it's hard to say that women bias towards the left. And funnily enough, the "nasty" right-wing party of the UK already has had 4 female leaders while the pro-equality left wing party had how many female leaders so far? I think the question was more that if women had 'ruled' the world in the past 2,000 years, would it look any different. The women above may lead their current parties but it's still in a world largely shaped by men. This is entirely correct, the women mentioned above would have grown up in an entirely different world, would they have even gone near politics, let alone become political leaders? Still doesn't make sense. We had a world where women did not rule for a long time. But we now do have a world where we have a lots of women who are political party leaders and many of them are right wing/nationalist. So what evidence do you have to show that a world led by women would be far less nationalistic except for your misogynist notion that women are generally more nicer to others? We still live in a world created and dominated by men. This has been the way for thousands of years. You don't think the world would be any different today if women had been the ones in power?" I don't think so. There are biological differences between men and women. But as modern politics has shown, these differences do not not show up among politicians. People in power pretty much behave the same way irrespective of their sex. If women were in power for thousands of years, I don't expect it to make a big difference. In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. " I think the point is that these tribes exist or existed within the wider context of a patriarchy as do the women leaders mentioned. Whether things would be different if we had lived in a mainly matriarchal society is virtually impossible to determine with any certainty because everything is based on society as it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. I think the point is that these tribes exist or existed within the wider context of a patriarchy as do the women leaders mentioned. Whether things would be different if we had lived in a mainly matriarchal society is virtually impossible to determine with any certainty because everything is based on society as it is. " Not really. There are indigenous tribes which developed by themselves and had equal rights for women or even matriarchal in some cases and were highly militaristic. If you are asking whether the world would be different if it was primarily matriarchal, the answer is obviously yes by definition. It's a tautology. Will the world be less nationalistic or "right wing" if women were leaders? Not at all. There is no evidence to show that's the case. You should talk with some village women in India I have met | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. I think the point is that these tribes exist or existed within the wider context of a patriarchy as do the women leaders mentioned. Whether things would be different if we had lived in a mainly matriarchal society is virtually impossible to determine with any certainty because everything is based on society as it is. " Whilst matrilineal tribes did not eschew violence completely, they tended to work in a more cooperative way. Clan mothers often had the ability to veto wars and initiate peace treaties. Violent actions in matrilineal tribes were usually defensive in nature, because decisions were usually made collectively, the women tempered the more aggressive and expansionist tendencies of the men. Matrilineal societies like the Iroquois Confederacy, or Haudenosaunee, focused on uniting Indigenous nations through peace, consensus-based governance, and matrilineal kinship. Their legacy centers on the Great Law of Peace (an oral constitution), participatory democracy, and an ideology of sustainability over expansion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. I think the point is that these tribes exist or existed within the wider context of a patriarchy as do the women leaders mentioned. Whether things would be different if we had lived in a mainly matriarchal society is virtually impossible to determine with any certainty because everything is based on society as it is. Not really. There are indigenous tribes which developed by themselves and had equal rights for women or even matriarchal in some cases and were highly militaristic. If you are asking whether the world would be different if it was primarily matriarchal, the answer is obviously yes by definition. It's a tautology. Will the world be less nationalistic or "right wing" if women were leaders? Not at all. There is no evidence to show that's the case. You should talk with some village women in India I have met "I've had many conversations with village women in Kerala. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fact, there were numerous tribes which were led by women. There is no evidence that they are more peaceful than the ones led by men. I think the point is that these tribes exist or existed within the wider context of a patriarchy as do the women leaders mentioned. Whether things would be different if we had lived in a mainly matriarchal society is virtually impossible to determine with any certainty because everything is based on society as it is. Not really. There are indigenous tribes which developed by themselves and had equal rights for women or even matriarchal in some cases and were highly militaristic. If you are asking whether the world would be different if it was primarily matriarchal, the answer is obviously yes by definition. It's a tautology. Will the world be less nationalistic or "right wing" if women were leaders? Not at all. There is no evidence to show that's the case. You should talk with some village women in India I have met
I've had many conversations with village women in Kerala. "Not sure what types villages they are. There are some villages where women are as aggressive as men when it comes to group conflicts which used to happen frequently. It's insane how casually they talk about transforming agricultural instruments into weapons | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. " It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.." Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. " Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that?" So what you’re saying is that it is impossible to extrapolate from examples of something to make a reasoned argument? That it’s pointless to discuss anything unless it’s actually happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that? So what you’re saying is that it is impossible to extrapolate from examples of something to make a reasoned argument? That it’s pointless to discuss anything unless it’s actually happened?" The question cannot be answered with any certainty as it has never happened, therefore any answer is based on isolated events and assumptions. I think bias plays a part in this too, but the counter argument to that would be we have evidence that men as leaders have caused / produced X or Y. My counter to that is why would a female leader be any different to a male leader in decision making as a leader? Finally, would it ever be acceptable to consider all women to be the same based on decisions made by female leaders? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d be interested to know how things would be if women were ruling now All these wars and genocides? Foreign policies? Investment in public services ? Climate and environmental ? " Hillary Clinton  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country" If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss?" In what way is he picking random women? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss? In what way is he picking random women?" Rwanda is one specific country. I can find numerous other societies where the impact has been different. To take one example and extrapolating it is a terrible way to answer this question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss? In what way is he picking random women? Rwanda is one specific country. I can find numerous other societies where the impact has been different. To take one example and extrapolating it is a terrible way to answer this question." Rwanda has taken a very bold move to change an entire culture, though, and reinforced it legally. They are hard coding equality into law. I’d say that is a pretty good example to look at. Everywhere in the world, bar a few small societies, has had a couple of millennia of patriarchal domination, so it’s impossible to use women in places like the UK, as examples c what it would be like had there been matrilineal or matriarchal societies for a couple of millennia, which is what OP is asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss? In what way is he picking random women? Rwanda is one specific country. I can find numerous other societies where the impact has been different. To take one example and extrapolating it is a terrible way to answer this question. Rwanda has taken a very bold move to change an entire culture, though, and reinforced it legally. They are hard coding equality into law. I’d say that is a pretty good example to look at. Everywhere in the world, bar a few small societies, has had a couple of millennia of patriarchal domination, so it’s impossible to use women in places like the UK, as examples c what it would be like had there been matrilineal or matriarchal societies for a couple of millennia, which is what OP is asking." Rwanda also has had the law changes only for a few years. For the same reason why you can't use the UK as an example, you can't use Rwanda as an example too. Not to mention the case of correlation does not always imply causation. Rwanda has gone through numerous changes recently and it's impossible to attribute them to women getting more power. As NotMe mentioned, we just don't have empirical evidence that shows that matriarchal societies are somehow better than patriarchal ones. There are examples of the matriarchal societies having gone both ways, just like patriarchal societies. If you feel that matriarchal societies will be better, you have to explain why. Is it because you believe that women are mentally different than men when dealing with real world issues? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. It would be fairer, it’s been proven in various societies.in Rwanda the law requires 50% of judges are female and increase in female CFOs were credited with adding 0.5% to the GDP. After the genocide ministries of gender statistics and ministry of women and families were instrumental in transforming the country If we are picking random women and reaching conclusions from that, why not Liz Truss? In what way is he picking random women? Rwanda is one specific country. I can find numerous other societies where the impact has been different. To take one example and extrapolating it is a terrible way to answer this question. Rwanda has taken a very bold move to change an entire culture, though, and reinforced it legally. They are hard coding equality into law. I’d say that is a pretty good example to look at. Everywhere in the world, bar a few small societies, has had a couple of millennia of patriarchal domination, so it’s impossible to use women in places like the UK, as examples c what it would be like had there been matrilineal or matriarchal societies for a couple of millennia, which is what OP is asking. Rwanda also has had the law changes only for a few years. For the same reason why you can't use the UK as an example, you can't use Rwanda as an example too. Not to mention the case of correlation does not always imply causation. Rwanda has gone through numerous changes recently and it's impossible to attribute them to women getting more power. As NotMe mentioned, we just don't have empirical evidence that shows that matriarchal societies are somehow better than patriarchal ones. There are examples of the matriarchal societies having gone both ways, just like patriarchal societies. If you feel that matriarchal societies will be better, you have to explain why. Is it because you believe that women are mentally different than men when dealing with real world issues?" So you don’t see how a society where equality has been built into law, explicitly, might be somewhere that could be looked at with a view to seeing how a more feminine influenced society could look? It may not be the case but it seems as though you are not willing to look at anything that might be looked at as an alternative to the patriarchy. Saying that we can’t make any projections of how the world might look had we had two millennia of matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, because we haven’t had two millennia of matriarchy is an incredibly conservative view that seeks to stifle any challenge to the status quo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you don’t see how a society where equality has been built into law, explicitly, might be somewhere that could be looked at with a view to seeing how a more feminine influenced society could look? " An equal society is not the same as one where women rule the world. What exactly do you mean by "more feminine"? Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? " Saying that we can’t make any projections of how the world might look had we had two millennia of matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, because we haven’t had two millennia of matriarchy is an incredibly conservative view that seeks to stifle any challenge to the status quo." I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in a equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you don’t see how a society where equality has been built into law, explicitly, might be somewhere that could be looked at with a view to seeing how a more feminine influenced society could look? An equal society is not the same as one where women rule the world. What exactly do you mean by "more feminine"? Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? Saying that we can’t make any projections of how the world might look had we had two millennia of matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, because we haven’t had two millennia of matriarchy is an incredibly conservative view that seeks to stifle any challenge to the status quo. I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in an equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? " No wonder you’re being so weirdly defensive. No one is suggesting letting anyone rule the world, someone merely mused in what the world might be like if we’d had two millennia of matriarchy, instead of patriarchy. Not every thread on the internet is a fight between two viewpoints. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you don’t see how a society where equality has been built into law, explicitly, might be somewhere that could be looked at with a view to seeing how a more feminine influenced society could look? An equal society is not the same as one where women rule the world. What exactly do you mean by "more feminine"? Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? Saying that we can’t make any projections of how the world might look had we had two millennia of matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, because we haven’t had two millennia of matriarchy is an incredibly conservative view that seeks to stifle any challenge to the status quo. I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in an equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? No wonder you’re being so weirdly defensive. No one is suggesting letting anyone rule the world, someone merely mused in what the world might be like if we’d had two millennia of matriarchy, instead of patriarchy. Not every thread on the internet is a fight between two viewpoints." I was just pointing out the problem with your argument. You still haven't answered what "more feminine" means. Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you don’t see how a society where equality has been built into law, explicitly, might be somewhere that could be looked at with a view to seeing how a more feminine influenced society could look? An equal society is not the same as one where women rule the world. What exactly do you mean by "more feminine"? Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? Saying that we can’t make any projections of how the world might look had we had two millennia of matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, because we haven’t had two millennia of matriarchy is an incredibly conservative view that seeks to stifle any challenge to the status quo. I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in an equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? No wonder you’re being so weirdly defensive. No one is suggesting letting anyone rule the world, someone merely mused in what the world might be like if we’d had two millennia of matriarchy, instead of patriarchy. Not every thread on the internet is a fight between two viewpoints. I was just pointing out the problem with your argument. You still haven't answered what "more feminine" means. Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men?" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in an equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? No wonder you’re being so weirdly defensive. No one is suggesting letting anyone rule the world, someone merely mused in what the world might be like if we’d had two millennia of matriarchy, instead of patriarchy. Not every thread on the internet is a fight between two viewpoints. I was just pointing out the problem with your argument. You still haven't answered what "more feminine" means. Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict." How many of these characteristics are cultural and how many of these are biological? If these are cultural, when you move towards a matriarchal society, it will change and women in those societies just behave like men in today's societies. If you believe that these are biological, well, I would just like to point out that this is the kind of attitude that leads to workplace sexism - "Women are not good for this job because they are risk averse". "Women are not good for this job because they are too nice." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am saying that we don't have empirical evidence to prove that a matriarchal society will be better. That's just a fact. As for what should happen in the future, I believe in an equal society, not a matriarchal society. By your logic, I could ask why not let the Chinese rule the entire world? It hasn't been tried before. Should we try it just for the sake of trying? No wonder you’re being so weirdly defensive. No one is suggesting letting anyone rule the world, someone merely mused in what the world might be like if we’d had two millennia of matriarchy, instead of patriarchy. Not every thread on the internet is a fight between two viewpoints. I was just pointing out the problem with your argument. You still haven't answered what "more feminine" means. Do you believe that there are non-physical characteristics where women are different from men? Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. How many of these characteristics are cultural and how many of these are biological? If these are cultural, when you move towards a matriarchal society, it will change and women in those societies just behave like men in today's societies. If you believe that these are biological, well, I would just like to point out that this is the kind of attitude that leads to workplace sexism - "Women are not good for this job because they are risk averse". "Women are not good for this job because they are too nice."" You asked for non-physical characteristics, you got them. They could be cultural, or they could relate to women being the people who most often give birth, and therefore would have most to gain from the ‘tend and befriend’ response se to stress or threat. Which often evolved to protect offspring by nurturing them or building social alliances, rather than resorting to immediate physical aggression. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. How many of these characteristics are cultural and how many of these are biological? If these are cultural, when you move towards a matriarchal society, it will change and women in those societies just behave like men in today's societies. If you believe that these are biological, well, I would just like to point out that this is the kind of attitude that leads to workplace sexism - "Women are not good for this job because they are risk averse". "Women are not good for this job because they are too nice." You asked for non-physical characteristics, you got them. They could be cultural, or they could relate to women being the people who most often give birth, and therefore would have most to gain from the ‘tend and befriend’ response se to stress or threat. Which often evolved to protect offspring by nurturing them or building social alliances, rather than resorting to immediate physical aggression." Still, as I mentioned above, this kind of attitude towards women is what leads to workplace sexism. In my experience, women are more than capable of acting as aggressive as men and I have seen them to be so. If they perceive any threat to their offsprings, they are more than capable of using force against the threat, just like men. Any perception of them being soft on others is cultural and you won't find differences between women in a matriarchal society and men in a patriarchal society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. How many of these characteristics are cultural and how many of these are biological? If these are cultural, when you move towards a matriarchal society, it will change and women in those societies just behave like men in today's societies. If you believe that these are biological, well, I would just like to point out that this is the kind of attitude that leads to workplace sexism - "Women are not good for this job because they are risk averse". "Women are not good for this job because they are too nice." You asked for non-physical characteristics, you got them. They could be cultural, or they could relate to women being the people who most often give birth, and therefore would have most to gain from the ‘tend and befriend’ response se to stress or threat. Which often evolved to protect offspring by nurturing them or building social alliances, rather than resorting to immediate physical aggression. Still, as I mentioned above, this kind of attitude towards women is what leads to workplace sexism. In my experience, women are more than capable of acting as aggressive as men and I have seen them to be so. If they perceive any threat to their offsprings, they are more than capable of using force against the threat, just like men. Any perception of them being soft on others is cultural and you won't find differences between women in a matriarchal society and men in a patriarchal society." Does your brain miss out words like statistically, more likely, on average? You seem to be searching for absolutes and certainty, you’d do well to realise that such things don’t exist. There are always outliers, all behaviours overlap, nothing is specifically male or female. However some behaviours are statistically more likely to be perpetrated by men or women. Your attitude appears to be, and forgive me if I’ve got the wrong impression, that something needs to be proved 100% or it is not relevant to a discussion. That sort of black and white thinking has sadly become far more prevalent among the terminally online. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In my experience, women are more than capable of acting as aggressive as men and I have seen them to be so. If they perceive any threat to their offsprings, they are more than capable of using force against the threat, just like men. Any perception of them being soft on others is cultural and you won't find differences between women in a matriarchal society and men in a patriarchal society. Does your brain miss out words like statistically, more likely, on average? " My brain very well understands it. You are the one who is struggling to understand the implications of the statements you are making. If someone says that "People who belong to X race are biologically more inclined to be rough," isn't that racism? Or can you excuse someone for saying it because he is only talking about statistics and not individuals? If you are making similar statements about women's behavioural traits in general, I don't see why I can't point out the sexist implications of it. " You seem to be searching for absolutes and certainty, you’d do well to realise that such things don’t exist. There are always outliers, all behaviours overlap, nothing is specifically male or female. However some behaviours are statistically more likely to be perpetrated by men or women. " Are you saying that women being aggressive at workplace is an outlier and they are on an average, biologically programmed to be soft and friendly to the others? And you are also saying that there isn't anything sexist about it? " Your attitude appears to be, and forgive me if I’ve got the wrong impression, that something needs to be proved 100% or it is not relevant to a discussion. " You are wrong and I forgive you. " That sort of black and white thinking has sadly become far more prevalent among the terminally online." Who is terminally online? Haven't you made your daily post on Farage yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything?" If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything? If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they?" So you can’t, that’s fine but it’s interesting that’s where your brain went. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything? If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they? So you can’t, that’s fine but it’s interesting that’s where your brain went." Because you haven't addressed that clearly. If it's cultural, there is no reason to believe these behavioural traits will be with women in a matriarchal society. If it's biological, then it leads to sexism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything? If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they? So you can’t, that’s fine but it’s interesting that’s where your brain went. Because you haven't addressed that clearly. If it's cultural, there is no reason to believe these behavioural traits will be with women in a matriarchal society. If it's biological, then it leads to sexism." I understand your need for simplicity, the human brain craves it, but the world is a complex place, and things are never as simple as you imply. There are likely many elements, it’s not an either or situation, and it’s telling that you feel the need to reduce it to such. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything? If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they? So you can’t, that’s fine but it’s interesting that’s where your brain went. Because you haven't addressed that clearly. If it's cultural, there is no reason to believe these behavioural traits will be with women in a matriarchal society. If it's biological, then it leads to sexism. I understand your need for simplicity, the human brain craves it, but the world is a complex place, and things are never as simple as you imply. There are likely many elements, it’s not an either or situation, and it’s telling that you feel the need to reduce it to such." Simplicity is you looking at random statistics and assuming that it's a good representation of the female character. You are generalising the behavioural traits of roughly half the world population. I am only pointing out the complicated outcomes that arise from the assumptions you made. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict." Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you point out where I’ve said anyone is biologically more inclined to do anything? If it is cultural, women in a matriarchal society won't have the characteristics you mentioned. Why would they? So you can’t, that’s fine but it’s interesting that’s where your brain went. Because you haven't addressed that clearly. If it's cultural, there is no reason to believe these behavioural traits will be with women in a matriarchal society. If it's biological, then it leads to sexism. I understand your need for simplicity, the human brain craves it, but the world is a complex place, and things are never as simple as you imply. There are likely many elements, it’s not an either or situation, and it’s telling that you feel the need to reduce it to such. Simplicity is you looking at random statistics and assuming that it's a good representation of the female character. You are generalising the behavioural traits of roughly half the world population. I am only pointing out the complicated outcomes that arise from the assumptions you made. " The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. " Women in general. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. Women in general." If women in general ruled the world, would you expect them to maintain these traits over a thousand years or more? Would males over that period score higher on average than females in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. would females start saying men are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. Women in general. If women in general ruled the world, would you expect them to maintain these traits over a thousand years or more? Would males over that period score higher on average than females in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. would females start saying men are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict?" Perhaps you need to look further up the thread about the examples of matrilineal societies/tribes that have been provided already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. " Your very next post replying to whether you are talking about specific types of females: " Women in general. " 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. Your very next post replying to whether you are talking about specific types of females: Women in general. 🤷♂️" Yes, the group the statistics refer to is women, but the statistics are not generalised. I think you need to go back to Reddit to practice, you aren’t very good at this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. Your very next post replying to whether you are talking about specific types of females: Women in general. 🤷♂️ Yes, the group the statistics refer to is women, but the statistics are not generalised. I think you need to go back to Reddit to practice, you aren’t very good at this." But you just said that it applies for women in general. Isn't that generalising?
Generalising means you are making a wider claim about a large group of people. That's exactly what you are doing when you say that women have specific traits and hence a matriarchal society will be different.
Not to mention the fact that all these statistics you randomly pick up from the internet without even reading the details are usually researches done in specific countries and hence those cultural biases will apply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. Women in general. If women in general ruled the world, would you expect them to maintain these traits over a thousand years or more? Would males over that period score higher on average than females in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. would females start saying men are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict? Perhaps you need to look further up the thread about the examples of matrilineal societies/tribes that have been provided already." Do you expect all female leaders to reach the same conclusions simply because they are women? If the answer is no and you recognise independent thinking exists in women, how do the statistics you are quoting predict or prove how a female led world would develop over centuries? Romanticising how something might work isn’t enough to establish credibility in an argument. Unless the expectation is to stereotype every man and woman to make the argument fit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. Your very next post replying to whether you are talking about specific types of females: Women in general. 🤷♂️ Yes, the group the statistics refer to is women, but the statistics are not generalised. I think you need to go back to Reddit to practice, you aren’t very good at this. But you just said that it applies for women in general. Isn't that generalising?
Generalising means you are making a wider claim about a large group of people. That's exactly what you are doing when you say that women have specific traits and hence a matriarchal society will be different.
Not to mention the fact that all these statistics you randomly pick up from the internet without even reading the details are usually researches done in specific countries and hence those cultural biases will apply."The question asked whether it was women in general, or women in leadership positions. Honestly, you need more practice at having a discussion, rather looking for a gotcha, constantly. The internet is rotting your brain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, statistically women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict. Are these statistics for female leaders or average females, detail matters. Women in general. If women in general ruled the world, would you expect them to maintain these traits over a thousand years or more? Would males over that period score higher on average than females in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. would females start saying men are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict? Perhaps you need to look further up the thread about the examples of matrilineal societies/tribes that have been provided already. Do you expect all female leaders to reach the same conclusions simply because they are women? If the answer is no and you recognise independent thinking exists in women, how do the statistics you are quoting predict or prove how a female led world would develop over centuries? Romanticising how something might work isn’t enough to establish credibility in an argument. Unless the expectation is to stereotype every man and woman to make the argument fit. " In a patriarchal society, certain types of behaviour are seen as being valuable in a leadership position, this means the sort of people who reach leadership positions in a patriarchal society are different to those who would reach leadership positions in a matriarchal society. The values displayed in matriarchal or matrilineal societies that have been studied, show that different behaviours are valued, so the same people would not reach leadership positions. I’m confused as to why this concept appears to be so difficult to understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that?" Yes I think it would be better , much better. There's loads of evidence to suggest woman lead fairer and men fail when given power | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistics aren’t random, they are relevant to the discussion. And I’m not generalising, I’ve been very careful not to, in fact. Your very next post replying to whether you are talking about specific types of females: Women in general. 🤷♂️ Yes, the group the statistics refer to is women, but the statistics are not generalised. I think you need to go back to Reddit to practice, you aren’t very good at this. But you just said that it applies for women in general. Isn't that generalising?
Generalising means you are making a wider claim about a large group of people. That's exactly what you are doing when you say that women have specific traits and hence a matriarchal society will be different.
Not to mention the fact that all these statistics you randomly pick up from the internet without even reading the details are usually researches done in specific countries and hence those cultural biases will apply.
The question asked whether it was women in general, or women in leadership positions.
Honestly, you need more practice at having a discussion, rather looking for a gotcha, constantly. The internet is rotting your brain."Agree.... you can't ask a general question and then dismiss evidence of specific examples! The only evidence we have is specific examples and they all point to women being fairer and better leaders than them, across cultures and history. It's only through male dominated religion, politics,, commerce and wars/sexual violence that stops it. Males are physically stronger so remove women from all forms of power | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The question asked whether it was women in general, or women in leadership positions. " And you said it was women in general. Either way, you made a generalisation about women when you said this: "women score higher on average than men in verbal abilities, empathy, and nurturance. Women are less likely to take risks, and more likely to use social or psychological methods to resolve conflict." " Honestly, you need more practice at having a discussion, rather looking for a gotcha, constantly. The internet is rotting your brain." As opposed to the beautiful brain of yours that comes up with replies like "I’m not going to shag you"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that? Yes I think it would be better , much better. There's loads of evidence to suggest woman lead fairer and men fail when given power" There are loads of examples of women doing exactly the bad shit that men do. And there are loads of examples of men doing good things you credit women for doubt. Anyone can handpick random examples which agree with their own biases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m confused as to why this concept appears to be so difficult to understand." Because there is little tangible to see as a reference and no workable model or specific examples given. Mostly just airy statements promising fairness. It isn't clear whether it's the women who would make things fairer, or whether the system itself that allows *real* women (not manly ones Margaret Thatcher or Catherine the Great) to hold power inherently does that. Would a society where the vulnerable (generally) hold power achieve the same thing, or is it a hormonal/physical thing? Perhaps paint a tangible picture of what would happen or be different. Or are we just believing in Wakanda and Wonder Woman's Amazons? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. " They'd have to learn how to reverse a car into a parking bay before they could rule the world, so we're safe chaps! Carry on! 😇 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most of the NGO front line staff helping foreign invaders are women. Very few women work in hands on engineering and building roles. Society would basically decay." There are also countries where NGO workers supporting immigrants are mostly men and women are at least equally represented in construction jobs. These specific examples do not give us enough evidence about how good or bad a women led society is going to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess all the tired old 'women can't do X,y and z' jokes would be replaced by similar but aimed at men. 🤷♀️" Funny you say that. A book "Children of Time" by Adrian Tchaikovsky shows an alien civilization which is matriarchal. Men in the society are oppressed by women. I don't remember much in detail. But I bet there were scenes where women put down men as incapable of doing things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess all the tired old 'women can't do X,y and z' jokes would be replaced by similar but aimed at men. 🤷♀️ Funny you say that. A book "Children of Time" by Adrian Tchaikovsky shows an alien civilization which is matriarchal. Men in the society are oppressed by women. I don't remember much in detail. But I bet there were scenes where women put down men as incapable of doing things." I expect there were because it assumed that a matriarchy would behave in the same way as a patriarchal in that respect. Which is why this discussion will ultimately go nowhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it a little dangerous to vocalise that one sex might be better at governance (or produce better outcomes) than the other? Surely that is a knife that cuts both ways, undermining the idea of equality?" It even goes against women again if you look at the reasoning for such wild claims in terms of women's nurturing nature, empathy, etc. These traits can be and are used against women to justify why they aren't good for certain jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question can only be answered with speculation.. Not strictly true there’s various case studies, Rwanda and Autonomous Kurdistan are the main ones. There’s also the philosophy of Jineology, which is based on a sound historical understanding of how power shifted from women , why it happened, and the problems that resulted, inequality, silvery etc can all be traced back to loss of women’s equality. Those are examples of specific societies, Its not evidence of what a world ruled by women over a long period of time would look like. The question I asked, how would you stand on that? Yes I think it would be better , much better. There's loads of evidence to suggest woman lead fairer and men fail when given power There are loads of examples of women doing exactly the bad shit that men do. And there are loads of examples of men doing good things you credit women for doubt. Anyone can handpick random examples which agree with their own biases." Name the country whose GDP proven to increase by legislating a higher percentage of men CFO's? They are not handpicked random examples, they are case studies in gender studies and the impact it has on society when you legislate for more women in senior commercial positions and judiciary You just are not read very well or have the capability to understand it , or are just a science denier , or maybe all 3 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it a little dangerous to vocalise that one sex might be better at governance (or produce better outcomes) than the other? Surely that is a knife that cuts both ways, undermining the idea of equality?" It depends on your beliefs, Jineism belief (and many other studies back this up), is that the degree of equality in any society is relative to the degree of women's equality in that society, and when women's equality rises equality for everybody rises. So by legislating for example that 51% of judges must be female, rewatch showed better outcomes , for men and women, It's not dangerous to vocalise your opinions no, it's dangerous to have society where opinions can't be vocalised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Name the country whose GDP proven to increase by legislating a higher percentage of men CFO's? " The GDP of most countries keep increasing year over year and most of them have male CFOs. How do you attribute the GDP increase in the country you mentioned specifically to women being CFOs? " They are not handpicked random examples, they are case studies in gender studies and the impact it has on society when you legislate for more women in senior commercial positions and judiciary " Can you share the name of the study? I would like to see it. " You just are not read very well or have the capability to understand it , or are just a science denier , or maybe all 3 " Ah here comes the personal attack. Can't handle your views being questioned? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not dangerous to vocalise your opinions no, it's dangerous to have society where opinions can't be vocalised." It's not illegal to question whether any certain race is less intelligent than others. That doesn't make it a good idea. It isn't necessarily a good idea to suggest that one sex is better than another. That doesn't make it less true if it indeed is. But perhaps it could have wider, unintended, consequences. Why stop at sex? Why not go for race, inherited traits or religion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. You mean real people like Catherine the Great and Margaret Thatcher? Or some fantasy Wakanda princess?" Maggie did some memorable things as prime minister. But the ones that stick In people's minds especially Notts Derbyshire was the decimation of the largest coal industry in England. That along with selling off publicly owned industries to private companies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. You mean real people like Catherine the Great and Margaret Thatcher? Or some fantasy Wakanda princess? Maggie did some memorable things as prime minister. But the ones that stick In people's minds especially Notts Derbyshire was the decimation of the largest coal industry in England. That along with selling off publicly owned industries to private companies." The world dodged a bullet with Hillary Clinton! The Thatcher was a right one too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just curious but i did think this the other day i wonder what our world would look like if women had ruled it? over the centuries? would it be any different or would it still be a shit storm. " Rich women rather than rich men ? It wouldn't be any different the contempt that the wealthy have for us commoners is staggering. It wouldn't make any difference also OP what makes you think women aren't already running the world? Why is modern society so OBSESSED with creating division? The biggest threat to the equilibrium is over compensation, the BBC is a prime example of this they have gone from one extreme to the other neither of which are working. Balance is the key and fair representation for BOTH sexes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wouldn't be any different the contempt that the wealthy have for us commoners is staggering." Having spoken to more than a couple of properly wealthy people, I've never seen them show any contempt for the commoners. By contrast, certain elements of the commoners seem to think that it's a positive virtue to hate the wealthy and to shout about it as often as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would still be a shitstorm just a different type. You need to be a certain type of person to be a leader and I don't think gender influences it much " If women ruled the world, I'm not convinced we'd suddenly have a utopia, but I do think leadership might look different. We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If my current experience of seeing the way that groups of teenage girls treat each other is anything to go on then I think it would be an absolute shit show. At least the boys just have a fight and then everyone is friends again." From my experience of being a Mum and a girl ... the teen girls grow out of that and build really supportive friendships. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems." We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians?" Reeves. Cv fraud Rayner. Tax dodger Haigh. Convict Natalie McGarry. embezzlement Baroness Uddin. Expenses fraud Michelle Mone. £202M tax payers money dodgy PPE Fiona Onasanya Perverting course of justice Tulip Siddiq. Convicted by overseas court Maria Miller Mortgage expenses Nicola sturgeon various unproved Carrie Johnson. Banging Boris while his then wife undergoing cancer treatment Not covered in glory nor largely representative of female politicians wrong doing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reeves. Cv fraud Rayner. Tax dodger Haigh. Convict Natalie McGarry. embezzlement Baroness Uddin. Expenses fraud Michelle Mone. £202M tax payers money dodgy PPE Fiona Onasanya Perverting course of justice Tulip Siddiq. Convicted by overseas court Maria Miller Mortgage expenses Nicola sturgeon various unproved Carrie Johnson. Banging Boris while his then wife undergoing cancer treatment Not covered in glory nor largely representative of female politicians wrong doing" Be fair on Tulip Siddiq, she has family that are annoying the government of a country that we refuse to extradite people to because we don't trust their justice system. And Carrie Johnson doesn't belong in that list at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians? Reeves. Cv fraud Rayner. Tax dodger Haigh. Convict Natalie McGarry. embezzlement Baroness Uddin. Expenses fraud Michelle Mone. £202M tax payers money dodgy PPE Fiona Onasanya Perverting course of justice Tulip Siddiq. Convicted by overseas court Maria Miller Mortgage expenses Nicola sturgeon various unproved Carrie Johnson. Banging Boris while his then wife undergoing cancer treatment Not covered in glory nor largely representative of female politicians wrong doing Margaret Thatcher, total cunt. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians? Reeves. Cv fraud Rayner. Tax dodger Haigh. Convict Natalie McGarry. embezzlement Baroness Uddin. Expenses fraud Michelle Mone. £202M tax payers money dodgy PPE Fiona Onasanya Perverting course of justice Tulip Siddiq. Convicted by overseas court Maria Miller Mortgage expenses Nicola sturgeon various unproved Carrie Johnson. Banging Boris while his then wife undergoing cancer treatment Not covered in glory nor largely representative of female politicians wrong doing " Liz Truss | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians?" You're missing the point. They can't change a systrem thats over 10,000 years old that way, deeply rooted in religions, culture, law and business....the best they can do is ruffle a few feathers like Thatcher or the NZ woman , then they're gone and the Status Quo returns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians? You're missing the point. They can't change a systrem thats over 10,000 years old that way, deeply rooted in religions, culture, law and business....the best they can do is ruffle a few feathers like Thatcher or the NZ woman , then they're gone and the Status Quo returns." There have been matriarchal indigenous tribes. No evidence that they were less violent than the others on an average. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to challenge our cultural assumptions about what a leader looks and behaves like. For too long we've rewarded the loud, aggressive "strongman" style seen in politics, even when it creates division and instability. Women often bring strengths like collaboration, empathy, and consensus-building that are undervalued in leadership. Maybe the world would be less focused on political tyrants and chest-beating "strong men", and more focused on actually solving problems. We already have lots of female politicians across the world, many of whom have been in positions of power. Have you seen signs that they are any different from male politicians? You're missing the point. They can't change a systrem thats over 10,000 years old that way, deeply rooted in religions, culture, law and business....the best they can do is ruffle a few feathers like Thatcher or the NZ woman , then they're gone and the Status Quo returns. There have been matriarchal indigenous tribes. No evidence that they were less violent than the others on an average." is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like " It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either." You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. " Sure, nothing ever can be stated as 100% true objective fact. But we have enough evidence to show that women in power do not act any different from men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. Sure, nothing ever can be stated as 100% true objective fact. But we have enough evidence to show that women in power do not act any different from men." We have enough evidence of women in power within a patriarchy. 🤷♀️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. Sure, nothing ever can be stated as 100% true objective fact. But we have enough evidence to show that women in power do not act any different from men. We have enough evidence of women in power within a patriarchy. 🤷♀️" The Haudenosaunee? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. Sure, nothing ever can be stated as 100% true objective fact. But we have enough evidence to show that women in power do not act any different from men. We have enough evidence of women in power within a patriarchy. 🤷♀️ The Haudenosaunee?" Operated within a wider patriarchy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" is there evidence as to whether they were violent in defence if themselves or actually initiated violence. I imagine that matriarchal societies in a world that was almost entirely run by women with a few pockets of patriarchy might behave very differently. It's never going to happen because there's too much at stake for the main players but none of us can say for sure what the world would be like It's hard to find that level of details in historic tribes as the feuds go on for long, making it difficult to track who started it in the first place. But the internet did show me one "The Haudenosaunee", an alliance of indegenous people in North America where women held more power. They were known to raid neighbouring tribes for various reasons, not including self defense. The whole idea that women are mentally softer, nurturing, etc is a cultural thing and not a biological trait of women. Humans are insanely resilient and elastic when it comes to adapting to situations and women aren't any different. As we have seen, women who achieve political power are as corrupt as men and are willing to go to wars. Don't blame that on men too. These women have free will. It's not going to change if the whole world is ruled by women either. You can't state that as a fact any more than I can state that the world would be better. Sure, nothing ever can be stated as 100% true objective fact. But we have enough evidence to show that women in power do not act any different from men. We have enough evidence of women in power within a patriarchy. 🤷♀️ The Haudenosaunee? Operated within a wider patriarchy. " Not really. The wider patriarchy didn't have any impact on them. They had a practice called "mourning wars". Even if someone in their tribe died of illness, they raided other tribes to get over it. Are you saying that this practice was also because of "wider patriarchy"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"^^ no I'm not saying that. I believe that unless we have thousands of years of matriarchy behind us we will never know with any certainty what the world would be like. You believe differently. We could go round in circles like this for ever. " In that case, one should say that the probability of a matriarchal society to be worse is the same as a matriarchal society to be better, simply because we don't have enough evidence either way. The problem here is that some people are arguing that a matriarchal society will be better. Apparently, women have this nice "nurturing" nature that would make the world more peaceful. If I show examples of women in power being corrupt and violent, it's blamed on patriarchy. Then why don't we blame their "nurturing" nature also on patriarchy? If women are good in some ways, it's because women are good in themselves. But if women are bad, it's because of men? And I am not even getting into the misogynistic implications of claiming that women are generally nicer and "nurturing". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"^^ yes they are but I'm not. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
